The Bush administration has consistently stated that the United States of America is under a threat of attacks from "terrorists".

Washington could very well be right...But from who precisely?

If and when attacks that target the U.S. occur, they will be instigated under the orders of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the American Secretary of Defense.

Proof of this was printed in an American media report by William Arkin, a military analyst. Arkin detailed the vast expansion of secret armies which the former Nixon official, aka Rumsfeld, amassed during Nixon's era.

Furthermore, Arkin revealed that part of Rumsfeld's current plans is to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" which would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."

The Defense Science Board prepared a highly classified document for the Secretary of Defence. The document details how a new organisation, to be called the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)" will be in charge of carrying out covert missions whose sole, deliberate intention is to "stimulate reactions" amongst militant groups. This in turn would incite them into committing violent acts which would render them liable to "counterattack" from U.S. forces.

What this means is that the U.S. government, under the leadership guidance of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and other members of the Washington brigade, plan to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations in order to provoke attacks on innocent people all for the sake of furthering their geopolitical ambitions.

But P2OG is not just targeting militant groups; it appears that aggressive measures will also be taken against "states/sub-state actors" accountable for harbouring these groups.

What are these measures precisely? According to the P2OG; "their sovereignty will be at risk."

The P2OG is actually a rehashing of an older, much similar plan that goes back to the days of John F. Kennedy, known as the Operations Northwoods.

The Northwoods plan which America's top military men presented to Kennedy called for a fake terrorist campaign to be instigated; complete with bombings, hijackings, dead Amercians and so on, as "justification" for an invasion of Cuba.

Northwoods was rejected outright by Kenney. But now the more up to date, sophisticated plan with unlimited resources is at the disposal of Rumsfeld. Even more frightening, Rumsfeld has no counterbalancing global rival to restrain him and has a president who is more than eager to "embrace any means whatsoever that will augment the wealth and power of his narrow, undemocratic, elitist clique."

The US had official plans to conduct terror attacks on ourselves to garner support for war.

To date, we have never entered into a war for the reasons told to us. It has always come out that there was a lie involved to get us to support war.

Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin - Never happened.
Pearl Harbor - Freedom of Information Act papers revealed that the US broke the codes prior to the invasion. We knew ahead of time that they were going to attack. We also had detailed plans on how to provoke Japan into attacking us.

The men in the Bush administration are following an agenda that would never have been permitted without 9/11 taking place. They have published this agenda along with the comments about the the fact that the US would not support this without a new Pearl Harbor. 10 of the men from this organization, Project for a new American Century (PNAC, with the info I describe still listed on their website), comprise Bush's administration. Bush was not even part of this. He was recruited because he was a good "candidate". He had no policies what so ever. His administration basically hired him to run for them. Jeb was supposed to be the man, but he failed at his first run at Governor so he did not have enough experience to be a viabale candidate. This is all doccumented.

You have an adminstration that openly professed that a "New Pearl Harbor" would benifit them and you do not find it curious or suspicious that one occured while they were in charge of preventing one?

You need to read more. You need to know more about the history of the people who are running the show. You need to learn more about Prescott Bush, Henry Kissenger, George H.W. Bush, the Skull and Bones organzation.

This book explains exactly what is going on and why it is going on. Virtually everything in this book has come true. Including the emergence of a new external threat (Osama) who is there to unite America in their support for this agenda.

You may have your heart in the right place, but you are not well versed in the realites that surround you. The people you support are not who they appear to be. This is not a theory, it is a fact and all the evidence is there dor anyone who wants to look. The problem is peolpe do not pay attention.

Why do you think that the same faces show up in administrations for 40 years. Why do you think the same people keep showing up in different positions in government? Then they show up on corporate boards of oil or defense related companies yet they keep finding their way back into government or into the World Bank?

I think the biggest problem with these types of 'conspiracy' ideas is that...they're called 'conspiracy' ideas! I, too, think there is much evidence pointing to 'Official' involvement in 911. There have been several cases of the govt doing things like it in the past (a la Jesse's post), and its not even 'conspiracy' talk--its just good ol' detective work and investigative reporting. I think the 'mainstream' media deliberately paints 'conspiracy theorists' as these fringe, un-credible people. Pair this along w/the average person's unwillingness to believe that their own, elected leaders (here in the USA!) are capable of perpetrating these kinds of horrific acts--in the advancement of their own agendas--and you have a populace that is ripe to be controlled by fear, and an environment where the truth never sees the light of day. Who wants to be called a "Conspiracy Nut"?

conspiracy theory (n.) A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

There is nothing wrong with backing a conspiracy theory if the evidence points in that direction.

conspiracy (n.) An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

If they would follow the bread crumbs that has been left as a path that is the size of a highway then they would realize that there is a cover up/conspiracy. Unfortunatly, they would rather believe the lies of the conspirators rather then do any research into the subject.

Even better, is that when they are proven wrong, they defend the conspirators as being justified in acting in an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

I have been called this for a long time. Odd thing is, my percentage of being right is a hell of alot better than theirs. Sad thing is, they do not even realize the chains that have been wraped around them because the controllers are masters of decieving people into thinking that they are giving up very little in return for their safety and comfort. Now that the controllers have nearly all, we will see, we will see.

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

Right on Crimson! I'm raising my hand too! Is it really so hard for folks to believe that powerful men get together and CONSPIRE to expand their influence/riches at the expense of everyone else? The really sad thing is when a politician or other public figure actually stick their neck out in support of the truth--only to be ridiculed or ignored. To me, one of the most glaringly, obviously set-up events is the Gulf Of Tonkin 'incident'. Isn't it kind of an accepted fact that this was a completely bogus event? It seems like the country gives a collective shrug and says, "Ahhh, that was like 40 years ago, who cares?" Why aren't we taught about this in school? Why don't history classes talk about shady government actions, so that kids gain a healthy skepticism of their so-called leaders?
I think a vast majority of people don't want to consider the ugly, horrifying possibility that segments of the government operate according to the whims of someone else, besides the electorate. Its like a mass-denial on a countrywide scale.